House of Lords Journal Volume 34
February 1774, 11-20

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Year published

1767-1830

Pages

23-29

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'House of Lords Journal Volume 34: February 1774, 11-20', Journal of the House of Lords volume 34: 1774-1776 (1767-1830), pp. 23-29. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=113654 Date accessed: 26 November 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Die Martis, 15o Februarii 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Cantuar. Dux Gloucester. Ds. Le Despencer.
Ds. Willoughby Br.
Epus. London. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Paget.
Epus. Eliens.
Epus. Wigorn. Ds. Cathcart.
Epus. Cestrien. Comes Gower, Præses. Ds. Trevor.
Epus. Lincoln. Dux Grafton, C.P.S. Ds. Romney.
Epus. Oxon. Dux Ancaster, Magnus Camerarius. Ds. Cadogan.
Epus. Meneven. Ds. Edgecumbe.
Ds. Sandys.
Epus. Asaphen. Dux Chandos.
Epus. Carliol. Dux Dorset. Ds. Bruce.
Epus. Landaven. Dux Bridgewater. Ds. Ravensworth.
Ds. Hyde.
Epus. Cestrien. Match. Rockingham. Ds. Mansfield.
Epus. Litch. & Cov. Ds. Lyttelton.
Comes Hertford, Camerarius.
Ds. Wycombe.
Ds. Sondes.
Comes Stamford. Ds. Scarsdale.
Comes Carlisle. Ds. Boston.
Comes Doncaster. Ds. Pelham.
Comes Abingdon. Ds. Camden.
Comes Plymouth. Ds. Digby.
Comes Coventry. Ds. Sundridge.
Comes Cholmondeley.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Marchmont.
Comes Stair.
Comes Rosebery.
Comes Dartmouth.
Comes Aylesford.
Comes Sussex.
Comes Macclesfield.
Comes Pomfret.
Comes Waldegrave.
Comes Effingham.
Comes Brooke.
Comes Bucks.
Comes Northington.
Comes Radnor.
Comes Spencer.
Viscount Hereford.
Viscount Montague.
Viscount Say & Sele.
Viscount Townshend.
Viscount Weymouth.
Viscount Falmouth.

PRAYERS.

Donaldsons against Beckett et al.

The Order of the Day being read for the further Consideration of the Cause wherein Alexander Donaldson and John Donaldson are Appellants, and Thomas Beckett and others are Respondents; and for the Judges to deliver their Opinions upon the Questions of Law proposed to them on Wednesday last:

The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, “That the Judges differed in their Opinions upon the said Questions.”

Judges deliver their Opinions seriatim.

Ordered, That, the Judges present do deliver their Opinions upon the said Questions seriatim, with their Reasons: Accordingly,

Mr. Baron Eyre was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had not the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and could not bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That if the Author had such Sole Right of first printing, the Law did take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that any Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition, against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Right is taken away by the Statute of 8th Anne, and that an Author, by the said Statute, is precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute; but that there may be a Remedy in Equity upon the Foundation of the Statute, independent of the Terms and Conditions prescribed by the Statute in respect of Penalties enacted thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had not the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Right is impeached, restrained, and taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Nares was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition, against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is taken away by the Statute 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That this Right is impeached, restrained, and taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Ashurst was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition, against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is not taken away by the Statute 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is not precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That this Right is not any Way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Ashurst delivered the Opinion of Mr. Justice Blackston (who was absent, being confined to his Room with the Gout) upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is not taken away by the Statute of 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is not precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That this Right is not any Way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Ordered, That the further Consideration of this Cause, and hearing the Opinion of the Rest of the Judges upon the said Questions, be adjourned till Thursday next: and that the Judges do then attend.

Roberstons against Watson.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Robert Roberston and Son, Merchants in Eyemouth, complaining of Three Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the 18th of December 1773, and 26th of January and 1st of February 1774; and praying, “That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Stephen Watson, of North Seaton in the County of Northumberland, may be required to Answer the said Appeal:”

It is Ordered, That the said Stephen Watson may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 15th Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon any of the Procurators or Agents of the said Respondent, in the said Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Edwards et al., Leave for a Bill.

After reading and considering the Report of the Judges, to whom was referred the Petition of Lewis Edwards, of Talgarth in the County of Merioneth, Esquire, and others; praying Leave to bring in a Private Bill for the Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, pursuant to the said Petition and Report.

Bill read.

Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act to enable Trustees, with the Consent of the Persons claiming under the Will of Mary Pryce Spinster deceased, to cut down and sell the Timber upon the settled Estates of the said Mary Pryce in the County of Merioneth, and to invest the Monies arising therefrom in the Purchase of Lands and Hereditaments to be settled to the Uses of the said Will, and for other Purposes.”

Haeseler and Erich’s Nat. Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing Nicholas Joachim Haeseler and John Erich.”

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

Ld. President. L. Abp. Canterbury. L. Le Despencer.
Ld. Privy Seal. L. Willoughby Br.
L. Paget.
D. Ancaster. L. Bp. London. L. Cathcart.
D. Chandos. L. Bp. Ely. L. Trevor.
D. Dorset. L. Bp. Worcester. L. Romney.
D. Bridgewater. L. Bp. Chichester. L. Cadogan.
L. Bp. Lincoln.
M. Rockingham. L. Bp. Oxford. L. Edgecumbe.
L. Sandys.
Ld. Chamberlain. L. Bp. St. Davids. L. Bruce.
L. Bp. St. Asaph. L. Ravensworth.
F. Stamford. L. Bp. Carlisle.
E. Carlisle. L. Hyde.
E. Doncaster. L. Bp. Landaff. L. Mansfield.
L. Bp. Chester.
E. Abingdon. L. Bp. Litch. & Cov. L. Lyttelton.
E. Plymouth. L. Wycombe.
E. Coventry. L. Sondes.
E. Cholmondeley. L. Scarsdale.
E. Abercorn. L. Boston.
E. Marchmont. L. Pelham.
E. Stair. L. Camden.
E. Rosebery. L. Digby.
E. Darmouth. L. Sundridge.
E. Aylesford.
E. Sussex.
E. Macclesfield.
E. Pomfret.
E. Waldegrave.
E. Effingham.
E. Brooke.
E. Bucks.
E. Northington.
E. Radnor.
E. Spencer.
V. Hereford.
V. Montague.
V. Say & Sele.
V. Townshend.
V. Weymouth.
V. Falmouth.

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Thursday next, at Ten o’clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince’s Lodgings near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Rapillard and Delapierre’s Nat. Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing Samuel Rapillard and Abraham Delapierre.”

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships; or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please;

Saumaise’s Nat. Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act for naturalizing Louis de Saumaise.”

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Taylor against Mosman.

Upon reading the Petition of Hugh Mosman, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Robert Taylor is Plaintiff:

Pritchard against Cotes:

Also, upon reading the Petition of Samuel Cotes the Elder, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Peter Pritchard is Plaintiff:

Hatton against Kettle and Mandeville:

Also, upon reading the Petition of Peter Kettle and Jonathan Mandeville, Defendants in a Writ of Error depending in this House wherein Joseph Hatton is Plaintiff:

Foot against Blanford and Russ:

Also, upon reading the Petition of John Blandford and John Russ Clerk, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Joseph Foot is Plaintiff:

Hatton against Jenks and Wrather:

Also, upon reading the Petition of Samuel Jenks and Samuel Wrather, Defendants in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Joseph Hatton is Plaintiff:

Young against Nottingham et al.

And also, upon reading the Petition of Alexander Nottingham and others, Defendants in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Robert Young is Plaintiff; setting forth, “That the Plaintiffs have not assigned Errors within the Time ordered by the House;” and therefore praying, “That the said Writs of Error may be Non pros’d, with such Costs as to their Lord ships shall seem meet:”

Writs of Error Nonprosd, with Costs.

It is Ordered, That the Petitioners do forthwith enter a Nonpros on the said Writs of Error, as desired; and that the Records be remitted to the Court of King’s Bench, to the End Execution may be had upon the Judgements given by that Court as if no such Writs of Error had been brought into this House: And further, That the Plaintiffs in Error do pay, or Cause to be paid, to the Defendants in Error, the Sum of Twenty Pounds for their Costs by reason of the Delay of the Execution of the said Judgements.

Heatley, for a Divorce. Bill.

Upon reading the Petition of Richard Heatley of London, Merchant; praying Leave to bring in a Bill to dissolve his Marriage with Arrabella Dawson his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill according to the Prayer of the said Petition:

Bill read.

Whereupon, The Earl of Sandwich presented to the House a Bill, intituled, “An Act to dissolve the Marriage of Richard Heatley with Arrabella Dawson his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes therein mentioned.”

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a Second Time on Wednesday the 2d Day of March next, and that Notice thereof be affixed on the Doors of this House, and the Lords summoned; and that the said Richard Heatley may be heard, by his Counsel, at the said Second reading, to make out the Truth of the Allegations of the Bill; and that the said Arrabella Dawson may have a Copy of the Bill, and that Notice be given her of the said Second Reading, and that the be at Liberty to be heard, by her Counsel, what she may have to offer against the said Bill at the same Time.

Causes put off.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Errors argued, assigned upon the Writ of Error wherein John Commons, Lessee of John Lord Viscount Netterville, is Plaintiff, and John Marshall Esquire is Defendant, which stands appointed for Wednesday next, be put off to Monday next; and that the Rest of the Causes be removed in Course.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit praesens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Jovis, decimum septimum diem Instantis Februarii, hora undecima Aurora, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Jovis, 17o Februarii 1774.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Cantuar. Dux Gloucester. Ds. Le Despencer.
Ds. Willoughby Br.
Epus. Londin. Ds. Apsley, Cancellarius. Ds. Paget.
Epus. Cicestrien. Ds. Cathcart.
Comes Gower, Præses. Ds. Trevor.
Epus. Lincoln. Dux Grafton, C.P.S. Ds. Romney.
Epus. Oxon. Ds. Edgecumbe.
Epus. Meneven. Dux Bolton. Ds. Sandys.
Epus. Asaphen. Dux Devonshire. Ds. Bruce.
Epus. Carliol. Dux Ancaster. Ds. Ravensworth.
Epus. Landaven. Dux Chandos. Ds. Hyde.
Epus. Cestrien. Dux Bridgewater.
Epus. Litch. & Cov. Ds. Mansfield.
March. Rockingham. Ds. Wycombe.
Ds. Sondes.
Comes Hertford, Camerarius. Ds. Scarsdale.
Ds. Boston.
Comes Stamford. Ds. Camden.
Comes Sandwich. Ds. Digby.
Comes Carlisle. Ds. Sundridge.
Comes Abingdon.
Comes Plymouth.
Comes Coventry.
Comes Abercorn.
Comes Marchmont.
Comes Stair.
Comes Rosebery.
Comes Strafford.
Comes Dartmouth.
Comes Aylesford.
Comes Macclesfield.
Comes Waldegrave.
Comes Effingham.
Comes Brooke.
Comes Northington.
Comes Radnor.
Comes Spencer.
Viscount Say & Sele.
Viscount Weymouth.
Viscount Falmouth.

PRAYERS.

Charles against Rowley.

The Answer of Hercules Langford Rowley Esquire, to the Appeal of Charles Vipont Charles Esquire, was this Day brought in.

Donaldsons against Beckett et al.

The Order of the Day being read for resuming the adjourned Consideration of the Cause wherein Alexander Donaldson and John Donaldson are Appellants, and Thomas Beckett and others are Respondents; and for the Rest of the Judges to deliver their Opinions upon the several Questions put to them:

Judges Opinions delivered.

Mr. Justice Willes was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Competition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is not taken away by the Statute of the 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is not precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That this Right is not any Way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Aston was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition against the Will of the Author: “And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is not taken away by the Statute of the 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is not precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That this Right is not any Way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Baron Perrott was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same, but could not bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, unless such Person obtained the Copy by Fraud or Violence:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that any Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Right is taken away by the Statute 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had not the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Right is impeached, restrained, and taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Gould was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same for Sale, and might bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his Consent:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did not take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that no Person might Afterward reprint and sell, for his own Benefit, such Book or, Literary Composition against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Action at Common Law is taken away by the Statute 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion “That this Right is impeached, restrained, and taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne;” And gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Baron Adams was heard upon the said Questions; and,

1. Upon the First Question delivered his Opinion, “That, at Common Law, an Author of any Book or Literary Composition had the Sole Right of first printing and publishing the same, but could not bring an Action against any Person who printed, published, and sold the same, unless such Person obtained the Copy by Fraud or Violence:” And gave his Reasons.

2. Upon the Second Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Law did take away his Right upon his printing and publishing such Book or Literary Composition; and that any Person might Afterward reprint and fell, for his own Benefit, such Book or Literary Composition against the Will of the Author:” And gave his Reasons.

3. Upon the Third Question delivered his Opinion, “That such Right is taken away by the Statute 8th Anne; and that an Author, by the said Statute, is precluded from every Remedy except on the Foundation of the said Statute, and on the Terms and Conditions prescribed thereby:” And gave his Reasons.

4. Upon the Fourth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Author of any Literary Composition, and his Assigns, had not the Sole Right of printing and publishing the same in Perpetuity, by the Common Law:” And gave his Reasons.

5. Upon the Fifth Question delivered his Opinion, “That the Right is impeached, restrained, and taken away, by the Statute 8th Anne:” And gave his Reasons.

Ordered, That the further Consideration of the said Cause be adjourned to Monday next; and that the Judges do then attend to deliver their Opinions seriatim, with their Reasons, upon the said Questions.

Edwards’s Bill.

Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, “An Act to enable Trustees, with the Consent of the Persons claiming under the Will of Mary Pryce Spinster, deceased, to cut down and sell the Timber upon the settled Estates of the said Mary Pryce in the County of Merioneth, and to invest the Monies arising therefrom in the Purchase of Lands and Hereditaments to be settled to the Uses of the said Will, and for other Purposes.”

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

Ld. President. L. Abp. Canterbury. L. Le Despencer.
Ld. Privy Seal. L. Willoughby Br.
D. Bolton. L. Bp. London. L. Paget.
D. Devonshire. L. Bp. Worcester. L. Cathcart.
D. Ancaster. L. Bp. Chichester. L. Trevor.
D. Chandos. L. Bp. Lincoln. L. Romney.
D. Bridgewater. L. Bp. Oxford. L. Edgecumbe.
L. Bp. St. Davids.
M. Rockingham. L. Bruce.
L. Bp. St. Asaph.
Ld. Chamberlain. L. Bp. Carlisle. L. Ravensworth.
L. Bp. Landaff. L. Hyde.
E. Stamford. L. Mansfield.
L. Bp. Chester.
E. Sandwich. L. Wycombe.
E. Carlisle. L. Bp. Litch. & Cov. L. Sondes.
E. Abingdon. L. Scarsdale.
E. Plymouth. L. Boston.
E. Coventry. L. Camden.
E. Abercorn. L. Digby.
E. Marchmont. L. Sundridge.
E. Stair.
E. Rosebery.
E. Strafford.
E. Dartmouth.
E. Aylesford.
E. Macclesfield.
E. Waldegrave.
E. Effingham.
E. Brooke.
E. Northington.
E. Radnor.
E. Spencer.
V. Say & Sele.
V. Weymouth.
V. Falmouth.

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Friday the 4th of March next, at Ten o’Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince’s Lodgings near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Foster et Ux. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of William Foster and Levina Davey Foster his Wife, on Behalf of themselves and of their Infant Children, Thomas Foster and Levina Foster; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Adams, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and After hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon under their Hands; and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

Creuzé et Ux. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Francis Creuzé and Sarah his Wife, on Behalf of themselves, and of Francis Creuzé the Younger and Sarah Creuzé the Younger, their Infant Children; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Perrott, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and After hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon under their Hands; and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

Wilson’s Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Elizabeth Wilson, Widow and Relict of John Wilson, late of Cobham in the County of Surrey, Esquire, deceased, and Mother and natural Guardian of John Wilson, an Infant under the Age of Twenty-one Years; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Baron Perrott, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and After hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon under their Hands; and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

Longlands to enter into Recognizance on Robertstons Appeal.

The House being moved, “That Thomas Longlands Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Robert Robertston and Son, Merchants in Eyemouth, on Account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Scotland:”

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Longlands may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Wauchope against M’Dowall et al.

The House being informed, “That Captain John M’ Dowall and others, Respondents to the Appeal of Andrew Wauchope Esquire of Niddrie, had not put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though duly served with the Order of this House for that Purpose:”

And thereupon an Affidavit of John Wauchope, Writer in Edinburgh, of the due Service of the said Order, being read:

Ordered, That the said Respondents do put in their Answer to the said Appeal, peremptorily, in a Week.

Corn, &c. Exportation of to America &c. Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Rose Fuller and others:

With a Bill, intituled, “An Act to allow the Exportation of Corn, Grain, and other Articles, to His Majesty’s Sugar Colonies in America; and to extend the Provisions of an Act, made in the last Session of Parliament, (intituled, “An Act to regulate the Importation and Exportation of Corn,”) allowing the Exportation of Wheat, Meal, Flour, Rye, Barley, or Malt, to the Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, to Bread, Biscuit, and Pease; and to allow the Exportation of all the said Articles to the Island of Alderney;” to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Clapham Church Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commdos, by Sir Francis Vincent and others;

With a Bill, intituled, “An Act for vesting a Piece of Waste Ground within, and Parcel of the Manor of Clapham, in the County of Surrey, in Trustees, and for enabling them to build a new Parish Church thereon;” to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Sir John Ramsden to make a navigable Canal, Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Cholmley and others:

With a Bill, intituled, “An Act for enabling Sir John Ramsden Baronet, to make and maintain a navigable Canal, from the River Calder (between a Bridge called Cooper’s Bridge and the Mouth of the River Coine) to The King’s Mill, near the Town of Huddersfield, in the West Riding of the County of York;” to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Tunbridge Wells to Ringles Cross Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Harcourt and others:

With a Bill, intituled, “An Act to continue, amend, and render more effectual, an Act, made in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, for repairing the Road from the Turnpike at Tunbridge Wells, in the County of Kent, to Ringles Cross, near Uckfield, in the County of Sussex;” to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Causes put off.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Errors argued, assigned upon the Writ of Error wherein John Commons, Lessee of John Lord Viscount Netterville, is Plaintiff, and John Marshall Esquire is Defendant, which stands appointed for Monday next, be put off to Wednesday next; and that the Rest of the Causes be removed in Course.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, vicesimum primum diem Instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.